Tips for a decent thread.

[guntotingtomcat]

Having started a few threads, I've noticed they either do okay, do stupidly well or simply fail. I reckon the best way to fail is to limit the scope with a narrow or niche question like "All the female, brunette, younger than twenty, halo playing, cat owners. Favourite type of earl grey?"
Good threads tend to be "YOU tell me about YOUR favourite food." Real vague, personal, plenty of scope.
The absolute key, however, is controversy. Too much is bad (ABORTION discuss) and too little is boring (ice cream is good).
So for me it is an opinion based thread with a little edge.
This one will probably flop because the intro is too long.
What do you all say?

Edit: When I say "good" I mean "a lot of replies".

What is it that makes people contribute to forums?

 

[Mcupobob]

Secret too getting a number 1 hit thread? It has to be on a real touchy subject, with a dash of trolling form the OP and a news story or ridiculous article linked to it. That or something vague with a easy answer to it.

 

[Harlemura]

Something everyone can answer, like an avatar or desktop background thread.
Has to be something you can put a proper answer to. Everyone can say "yes" or "no" if you ask them if they like bread, but it won't go very far. Try and do something they can put a backstory to.

 

[manic_depressive13]

Define a "good" thread. Just because it got 1000 replies doesn't make it good, because frankly no one gives a flying fuck what kind of shoes you wear or how you sit. Ultimately those threads are dull and pointless, but if a lot of replies and a badge is what you're looking for, go for it.

 

[arcticspoon]

Keep your demographic in mind: man-children frequenting the fora of a gaming site. Discuss things that matter to them, such as, "Why does my girlfriend call me a f** when I try to play Kirby's Epic Yarn with her?" or "Do you consider the number of STDs you have on Fable 3 a high score?" (by the way, the answer is obviously yes).

 

[superbatranger]

It's simple, yet difficult to achieve. It has to have some level of discussion, and it must be a topic everyone can comment on and relate to.

 

[guntotingtomcat]

Good threads tend to be "YOU tell me about YOUR favourite food." Real vague, personal, plenty of scope.

That's not a good thread. That's an unimaginative, repetitive thread, the sort of which is a pox on the site. A good thread is one that is intelligently written, with a legitimate point for discussion and a lot of material.

These [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.242767-Marine-Mike-Presents-Games-and-Ammo-M4-Carbine] are [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.170379-Games-Monitor-Black-and-White-of-Moral-Gaming] good [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.147172-Games-Monitor-Come-Hell-or-High-Charisma] threads [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.91932-A-Real-Pain-in-the-Ass], unfortunately of a type which has become rare on this site. More's the pity.

That you, and apparently, most of the Escapist community, believe that that sort of thread is "good" demonstrates a lot, none of it favourable to you.

The absolute key, however, is controversy. Too much is bad (ABORTION discuss) and too little is boring (ice cream is good).

Not necessarily. The threads I linked above have little controversy, and yet, they demonstrate damned near everything I'd want in a thread. Getting 1,000 replies in a thoughtless, stupid thread is less satisfying than getting ten in a properly written one.

Forgive me, I should have been clear. What I meant when I said "good" was "a lot of replies". I wasn't going for edifying or deep or gun. If it makes you feel more intelligent, you can pretend this is a thread about the psychology and methodology of grabbing attention, which was kind of what I was going for.
But you are correct, a 'good' thread would discuss a contentious aspect of gaming or its culture which explores the different viewpoints and ideas which, through the volume of contribution, fashions a coherent argument. I just wanted to discuss what it is that makes some topics get 3 replies and others 30,000.

 

[RatRace123]

Try not to be like me, only recently have my threads lasted fairly long, I think my problem is telling a long, several paragraph story, you know getting fairly in depth.
I like to think it sets the mood, but it's kind of a mood killer, people generally respond less if you have a wall of text before your main point.
That doesn't really seem to be a problem for me right now, though, as I have not one, but two threads that were just in the recent response box.
Also make it an interesting thread, that ties together a personal question, try to get to know your audience.
Or failing that, share an extremely interesting bit of news, or if you don't mind getting in huge heaps of trouble, start a flame war. Lots of people will comment on those.

Or you could just post a political question in the religion/politics section.

God damn it, I did it again, I can never seem to write a short 3-5 word response, I always write a freakin' essay.

Oh, and a snazzy, eye catching title. Something like "New study confirms that games are created by satan."
That'd score you a lot of views.

 

[Hellz_Barz]

Make it about American politics and just watch the yanks bicker, always the same ones too.

 

[smithy_2045]

A good thread elicits an emotional response from the reader.

 

[SonicWaffle]

Forgive me, I should have been clear. What I meant when I said "good" was "a lot of replies". I wasn't going for edifying or deep or gun. If it makes you feel more intelligent, you can pretend this is a thread about the psychology and methodology of grabbing attention, which was kind of what I was going for.

The problem is that merely getting a lot of replies doesn't make a thread good, what makes it good is getting a lot of interesting replies. The reason threads like "YOU tell me YOUR favourite food" suck is not that they're repetitive, it's that they have practically zero discussion value. What tends to happen in similar threads ("What are your top 3 games", "How old are you", "What sex are you" etc etc) is that people post once with their answer, and then abandon the thread. You end up with a thread that consists of nothing more than single posts, nobody quoting one another or discussing their answers, just dropping the information and leaving.

But you are correct, a 'good' thread would discuss a contentious aspect of gaming or its culture which explores the different viewpoints and ideas which, through the volume of contribution, fashions a coherent argument. I just wanted to discuss what it is that makes some topics get 3 replies and others 30,000.

Like I said above, discussion value. It doesn't really matter what the thread is about, as long as it's something people can actually talk about. Once people start replying to one another, it'll keep bumping the thread so that other people will notice it, comment, and hopefully be quoted themselves.

 

[Bill_Stanbrook]

In relation to threads, perhaps instead of using the terms 'good' and 'bad' here, we should be using the terms 'healthy' and 'stagnant'.

A healthy thread will normally get a decent number of replies, as it invites and encourages discussion. The initial post should involve compelling subject matter that interests a large number of people, and which they have an opinion on which they feel compelled to share. Rather than answering all the questions it raises, the initial post should finish in a more open-ended way that encourages people to add their own answers to the questions put forward.

A stagnant thread is one that dies early on the vine. Generally this is because the subject matter is not compelling enough to invite discussion, or because it involves subject matter that's too niche targeted (too small a group of people are actually interested in it).

And then, of course, there's luck and timing to factor in to why a particular thread may succeed or fail.